More Miscellany: Bechly reappears (General)

by David Turell , Monday, June 17, 2024, 18:38 (157 days ago) @ dhw

Oxidation

DAVID: God does not control each cyanobacterium at work.

dhw: We are talking about the vast number of environmental “teeter totterings” described in the article, each of which – according to your theory – would have meant your God “adjusting” in his efforts to fulfil his one and only purpose. […] Does all this really sound like an omniscient, omnipotent mind that knows right from the start exactly what it wants and exactly how to get it?

DAVID: Remember, not everything is directly created. God uses evolving processes.

dhw: Do you think all the “teeter totterings” of environmental conditions such as oxidation, which dictated what species could/couldn’t survive, were deliberately designed by him so that he could create and then cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with his one and only purpose, or that he had to “adjust” to them because they were beyond his control?

DAVID: I repeat: God uses an evolutionary process. Single algae are beyond His individual control.

dhw: Why are you repeating it instead of answering my question, now bolded?

I did answer it obviously beyond your willingness to understand. Evolution is teeter-totterings of stepwise evolution.

bacteria use bacteriophages in warfare (now “overblown Darwin-speak”)

DAVID: I'm glad you vented your rage. You still don't understand I rage against Darwinists misuse of words and his theory, not himself.

dhw: There is no “rage”. I am calmly pointing out that the statement “evolution repeats itself”, just like the statement “evolution maintains the diversity of tailocin variants”, simply states what happens in the course of evolution. I see no reason why you should vent your anti-Darwinist rage by describing a straightforward statement of fact as “phony, overblown Darwin-speak propaganda.” Nor do I accept the word “undefendable” in your statement that “Darwinists constantly defend his undefendable theory”, which I would regard as “overblown anti-Darwin-speak propaganda”, since even you accept the theories of common descent and of nature selecting those organs/organisms that are useful in the “warfare” for survival.

DAVID: I am not a naturalist!! I believe God designed evolution. His process resembles common descent.

dhw: If by “naturalist” you mean “atheist” then of course you are not a naturalist. However, if you believe that your God developed new life forms out of earlier life forms, then you accept the theory of common descent.

Designed common descent will look like Darwin's 'natural' common descent.

Our heart differs from that of the great apes

DAVID: Chicken and egg problem: one cannot run at high speed unless one has the heart for it to begin with.

dhw: So you think your God popped in and enlarged the hearts of a group of pre-sapiens with the great news that now they could run faster. I suggest that the heart and all other cell communities (organs/organisms) RESPOND to demands (and opportunities), as opposed to them being changed in ANTICIPATION of demands (and opportunities). And I suggest that this principle underlies the whole history of evolution.

DAVID: My theory of evolution is not Godless as yours is. God designed in anticipation of use.

dhw: Please stop this constant distortion. The alternative theories I offer ALWAYS allow for the possibility of God as the designer. I am an agnostic. A God who endows his creations with the ability to change in response to new conditions is just as much a God as one who looks into his crystal ball and then dashes around to perform operations that will prepare his 0.1% of chosen species for conditions which do not yet exist. And I must confess, I find the latter considerably less feasible than the former.

Design assumes God designs for future needs. The design of the human heart shows this. Ancestors of Lucy used running as a survival skill.